From owner-freebsd-current Sun Aug 3 05:44:56 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id FAA22583 for current-outgoing; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 05:44:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.5]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA22578 for ; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 05:44:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id HAA16691; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 07:44:21 -0500 (CDT) Received: from sjx-ca30-16.ix.netcom.com(204.31.235.176) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id sma016689; Sun Aug 3 07:44:02 1997 Received: (from asami@localhost) by blimp.mimi.com (8.8.6/8.6.9) id FAA01581; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 05:44:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 05:44:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199708031244.FAA01581@blimp.mimi.com> To: phk@dk.tfs.com CC: current@freebsd.org In-reply-to: <2825.870592597@critter.dk.tfs.com> (message from Poul-Henning Kamp on Sun, 03 Aug 1997 09:16:37 +0200) Subject: Re: ports-current/packages-current discontinued From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) Sender: owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk * I wonder how many of you whould have written similar to * argue against the inclusion of awk, sed, yacc, lex & csh, * using the very same arguments, in earlier days of unix ? This is the funniest message I've seen in the whole thread. How can you compare all those utilities written by the Unix developers themselves with external software whose incompatilibity between versions are yanking us around? Nobody's (well, not me anyway) talking about "bloat" here. * Tcl and perl represent a significant development in programming, * and you guys argue that they should not be in our favourite * state-of-the-art UNIX ? They absolutely should be. Didn't I say that? That is why I would like to give the user the choice, using the ports collection. Satoshi